Guys! The film is only 2 hours! Given the time, this was a home run! No book adaptation is gonna do it 100 percent.

The problem is that it tried to be. Listening to Snyders commentary, the rational for putting things in the movie are most often that they were "Pretty cool" and "just like in the comic" (seriously it almost gets to be funny/sad how often he says those two phrases in explaining why he did things) rather than any story based rational or thematic need for their inclusion.

I think Watchmen just came out a few years too early. I think it would have carried more weight after a Justice League or Avengers film.

I don't see it. Watchmen is very, very period-specific, both in terms of its plot and its genre relevance. Releasing it a few years later wouldn't make it any more relevant to the genre vis a vis modern movies like Avengers than it otherwise was. I'm not even sure its possible to make a true deconstruction of the movies period; they have already incorporated too much deconstruction and reconstruction into their narrative DNA.

Yes, it was incredibly accurate to the events of the original comic. But I think that just highlights the real challenge of adapting a work to film, a challenge this film did not meet. Yeah, all of the events were there, more or less, but the tone and the presentation were completely wrong. The songs on the soundtrack were goofy, distracting, and out of place. The overly-stylized look, over use of slow motion, and cartoonishly over the top violence took me out of it. Certain lines of dialogue were read with completely different meaning than what they were in the book. The presentation of certain scenes and characters in terms of the use of color and lighting were way too on the nose (everything about Adrian's coloring in the film says "just so you know, guys, this is the villain"). The things they did change, namely the transplanting of the "nothing ever ends line," showed a lack of understanding of what they meant and their importance to the original story. It seemed like Snyder practically memorized the events of the story, but he didn't have a very deep or meaningful understanding of what they actually meant.

Some people say it was a near perfect adaptation because it got the events of Watchmen on screen without much change. I say it was a piss poor adaptation because it didn't feel like Watchmen at all. It was goofy, overly stylized, and didn't seem to understand the themes and tone of what it was adapting.

So basically what works on the page doesn't work in motion is what your thought is.

__________________
If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses. - Henry Ford
-----------
Who the **** makes a movie and while planning it is like, "you know what this needs...is some Greg Kinnear."

So basically what works on the page doesn't work in motion is what your thought is.

No, my thought is that what worked on the page did not, in this case, work in motion because the filmmaker didn't seem to have a real understanding of what the thing that worked on the page was all about.

Eh, I didn't care much for it but then I never cared much for the source material either. I like superhero stories for the 'super' part. Mere costumed crimefighters have never interested me much. And even though this does have a superhuman character in it all he basically does is be so apathetic about his whole situation that he mainly sits on ass for most of the story. Yeah, that's sure to win me over.

I saw this twice in theaters just to give it a fair shake and I haven't felt any desire to revisit it since.

5/10 just because at least it looks pretty and some of the actors are really giving it their best go at it.

Regardless of whether or not one feels that the book's themes and tones were executed faithfully in the movie version, I find it horribly condescending to conclude that the director was not smart enough to understand them.

I think ultimately why this suffered and flopped was that it was only ever going to be a niche' product for a niche' market. Those that are into it really love it. Then there's everyone else who frankly just didn't care. It's kind of like Kick-Ass in that way, just with a tremendous budget that probably was too much for the size of the audience it was going to attract.

No, my thought is that what worked on the page did not, in this case, work in motion because the filmmaker didn't seem to have a real understanding of what the thing that worked on the page was all about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk23

I think Watchmen just came out a few years too early. I think it would have carried more weight after a Justice League or Avengers film.

Despite my "criticisms", I think the film will end up holding up very well in the long run.

Regardless of whether or not one feels that the book's themes and tones were executed faithfully in the movie version, I find it horribly condescending to conclude that the director was not smart enough to understand them.

But he very clearly did not understand them. I'm sorry if that's condescending to say, but it's true. If you think moving around the "nothing ever ends" line like that works just fine, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what one of the book's key moments was all about.

It's not "very clearly" at all. You are assuming. Considering he didn't write the screenplay, which would be the main culprit of the "Nothing ever ends" change, you're also basing this belief on only one possibility among various others.

EDIT: Also, you make a mistake by assuming that because a certain element of the book was changed that the only conclusion to come to is lack of comprehension on Snyder's part, which is not just condescending, but also completely unfounded.

And it's also pretty limiting if you think there is only one right way to interpret the book, and only one correct way to execute that through film.

It's not "very clearly" at all. You are assuming. Considering he didn't write the screenplay, which would be the main culprit of the "Nothing ever ends" change, you're also basing this belief on only one possibility among various others.

EDIT: Also, you make a mistake by assuming that because a certain element of the book was changed that the only conclusion to come to is lack of comprehension on Snyder's part, which is not just condescending, but also completely unfounded.

And it's also pretty limiting if you think there is only one right way to interpret the book, and only one correct way to execute that through film.

Nope. I never did that.

I never said that the fact that it was changed shows that Snyder didn't understand what Watchmen was about. I said that the way he changed what he changed, in addition to a bunch of other stuff he did, is an indicator that he didn't understand what Watchmen was about.

I also never said that there was only one way to interpret the book and only one way to execute it through film. What I did say is that the way he did it was wrong. There's a difference there.

I'm sorry if you think what I'm saying is condescending and unfounded, but I don't see how anyone can chalk up Snyder's handling of the "nothing ever ends" line as anything other than him not getting what that line was all about. The line is stripped of all meaning relating to the themes of the story when placed in any context besides a conversation between Manhattan and Veidt right after the thing in New York happened.

Yes, it was incredibly accurate to the events of the original comic. But I think that just highlights the real challenge of adapting a work to film, a challenge this film did not meet. Yeah, all of the events were there, more or less, but the tone and the presentation were completely wrong. The songs on the soundtrack were goofy, distracting, and out of place. The overly-stylized look, over use of slow motion, and cartoonishly over the top violence took me out of it. Certain lines of dialogue were read with completely different meaning than what they were in the book. The presentation of certain scenes and characters in terms of the use of color and lighting were way too on the nose (everything about Adrian's coloring in the film says "just so you know, guys, this is the villain"). The things they did change, namely the transplanting of the "nothing ever ends line," showed a lack of understanding of what they meant and their importance to the original story. It seemed like Snyder practically memorized the events of the story, but he didn't have a very deep or meaningful understanding of what they actually meant.

Some people say it was a near perfect adaptation because it got the events of Watchmen on screen without much change. I say it was a piss poor adaptation because it didn't feel like Watchmen at all. It was goofy, overly stylized, and didn't seem to understand the themes and tone of what it was adapting.

this pretty much sums it up.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batman

Comic fans Ɉ will always defend the hot chick with the rack, unless said chick was divorcing someone like Michael Fassbender or Tom Hardy.

I never said that the fact that it was changed shows that Snyder didn't understand what Watchmen was about. I said that the way he changed what he changed, in addition to a bunch of other stuff he did, is an indicator that he didn't understand what Watchmen was about.

I also never said that there was only one way to interpret the book and only one way to execute it through film. What I did say is that the way he did it was wrong. There's a difference there.

I'm sorry if you think what I'm saying is condescending and unfounded, but I don't see how anyone can chalk up Snyder's handling of the "nothing ever ends" line as anything other than him not getting what that line was all about. The line is stripped of all meaning relating to the themes of the story when placed in any context besides a conversation between Manhattan and Veidt right after the thing in New York happened.

More importantly I don't see what's wrong with voicing this opinion.

You don't see the glaring contradiction in that statement? I have no problem with your opinion (in fact I agree that it wasn't a strong adaptation); I have a problem that you seem to think it isn't opinion. By stating that someone's interpretation is wrong indicates you think there is only one way in which to interpret it.

Also, your insistence on Snyder's misunderstanding of the material keeps going back to this moving of the "Nothing ever ends" line; once again, a problem belonging to the script, which Snyder did not write.

You don't see the glaring contradiction in that statement? I have no problem with your opinion (in fact I agree that it wasn't a strong adaptation); I have a problem that you seem to think it isn't opinion. By stating that someone's interpretation is wrong indicates you think there is only one way in which to interpret it.

No, there isn't a contradiction. Saying that an interpretation is wrong isn't saying that there's only one way to interpret something. It's saying that that particular interpretation is wrong. There can still be multiple valid interpretations of something.

Take Superman for example. He has been interpreted as a metaphor for the struggles of the working class urban Jewish people. He has been interpreted as a Christ-analogue. He has been interpreted as a living embodiment of the American dream. I accept and respect all of these interpretations. If someone said he promoted Nazi ideology I would say they were wrong.

Saying that an interpretation is wrong isn't the same thing as saying there's only one way to interpret something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hammerhedd11

Also, your insistence on Snyder's misunderstanding of the material keeps going back to this moving of the "Nothing ever ends" line; once again, a problem belonging to the script, which Snyder did not write.

Yes, but Snyder read it, and as director it's his job to ask for changes if there are problems with it.

I read the graphic novel before seeing the movie, and I thought the movie did a great job of translating from one media to another...you had to expect some changes like the pirate story being left out, but some things seemed to change that I thought were a little odd, however I may be wrong about it.

I don't recall Rorschach being featured in the comic WITHOUT his mask in public like he was in the movie, I think he was the guy holding the doomsday sign in the movie and I thought that wasn't how it happened in the comics. I also was disappointed they cut the prison psychiatrists story in the movie...him going home and his downward spiral.

Like I said, you have to expect SOME changes, but I was letdown by these.

The Question, my problem with your statement is that you say Snyder does not understand the material based off of your understanding of the book but who is to say that your understanding is any more correct than Snyder's? You speak of a correct understanding of a piece of art as if there can only be one.

I ask you this. What is the correct understanding of the material that you speak of?

The Question, my problem with your statement is that you say Snyder does not understand the material based off of your understanding of the book but who is to say that your understanding is any more correct than Snyder's? You speak of a correct understanding of a piece of art as if there can only be one.

No I don't. I absolutely do not. I have, at no point, said anything to indicate that. I have, in fact, gone out of my way to say that I do not believe that to be the case. I will repeat myself: Saying that someone doesn't understand a work is not the same thing as saying there's only one way to interpret a work. There can be multiple valid readings of a work, the one that's being criticized just happens to not be one of them.

I have said this several times, I don't understand why you keep insisting that I think there's only one valid way to interpret something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hammerhedd11

I ask you this. What is the correct understanding of the material that you speak of?

The main point I've brought up to illustrate that Snyder had a very shallow understanding of the source material is the "nothing ever ends" line, so I'll talk about that.

The whole point of that line is Dr. Manhattan, a person with a broader perspective of life and history, confronting Veidt with the notion that it's impossible to truly save the world. That, by the very nature of humanity and society, things will inevitably shift back and forth between order and entropy. There is no end to history, if you 'fix' things, inevitably they will break again. It was one character confronting another character who had attempted to save the world with a single grand, sweeping gesture with the notion that trying to save the world with a single grand, sweeping gesture is ultimately futile. Adrian Veidt, as a character, was taking the concept of the superhero, and individual who's epic deeds protect the world from destruction, to the darkest possible extreme. Manhattan confronting him with "nothing ever ends" was the narrative pointing out the folly of trying to make a better world through singular grand gestures, and that ultimately Veidt killed people for nothing, because the peace he created would never last. Manhattan's confrontation with Rorschach was about the same thing. The damage already having been done, Rorschach exposing Veidt's plot would only make things worse. Different goals, different ideology, but Rorschach was also attempting a grand gesture to change the world that the narrative condemned. The whole thing was showing the disastrous extremes of the usually blunt approach to problem solving that superhero books have.

Transplanting the line to Dan and Laurie at the end of the movie stripped it of all that meaning.